Do you like movie adaptations? Me neither.

Am I the only person who hates movie adaptations? I also don’t like game adaptations, which is when they take a movie/novel and make it into a game (I’m looking at you, Age of Conan). However, I am going to focus on movie adaptations for this topic.

The biggest complaint I have about movie adaptations is that it destroys the interest of reading the books they were based on. Before the days when I looked up summaries of movies online, I would watch a movie and find out that it was based on a book. I already know the story just by seeing the movie, so what would be the point of reading the book? The surprise scenes and the plot twists wouldn’t be so unique since I’ve already seen them in the movie. Now that I know of this trend (which dates back to the 1920’s), I have been looking up recent movies on Wikipedia and checking to see if they are based on existing novels. It’s pretty surprising for me that a good number of these books were made into movies, as well as the fact that they trimmed and altered the storyline to fit the two-hour requirement or to satisfy the movie audience. I’m not even sure if I want to read a book first and then watch the movie, because that would mean that the movie will dismantle and replace my imagination of the story piece by piece as I watch the movie. I could try to ignore the movie’s portrayal of the novel…

But then what would be the point of watching the movie in the first place? And seriously, why couldn’t they just pick one form of media and stick with it?

I’ve already read a few stories that I hoped wouldn’t be made into movies, and I’m sure that most people would reply by saying, “Just don’t watch the movies.” Well, that’s exactly what I’m going to do. In fact, I’m going to boycott every movie adaptation out there and read the books instead. Is anyone with me, or am I alone with this?

i think people really overplay the whole “book made into movie” deal.

It seems to me that people should adore when a book they have read has been made into a movie, because then they can act smug about it to everyone else.

Yes, the book was better. we get it

I liked The Lord of the Rings movies. i never read the books, don’t really care to.

Not all book adaptations are bad. The Golden Compass… please, don’t even compare that filth

but Lord of the Rings was pretty good, admittedly.

The way i see it, if i like a book, and then i like the movie based on it, it’s a DOUBLE win.

if plays count, we saw an adaptation of Hamlet that was brilliant.

Slaughterhouse V was my favorite book, and i hear that Kurt Vonnegut himself thought the movie was pretty good. I really look forward to seeing the movie version because if i enjoy it, i get to enjoy the same story in two different forms.

i know because i do it too. People have tried to get me to see The Bridge to Terebithia saying it was pretty good, but i refuse to see it because it doesn’t look much like the book, and coldly explain “the book was better”. Does that mean the movie was bad? i have no idea, but i still claim it.

So yes, i am a hypocrite, but that doesn’t mean everyone else should be :smile:

I don’t have a problem with books being turned into a movie but when it comes to a game based off of a movie; that’s annoying. Some games came out even before the movie did! What’s up with that?!

Well, you have a good point. I thought Forrest Gump was a good movie, but I also didn’t feel like reading the book. Actually, there are two novels.

I hate three types of movies:

  1. Movies that are based on books
  2. Remakes (SOME of them are okay…)
  3. Bad sequels/prequels

Nobody seems original anymore…
Most of the comedy movies suck because they are so cheep and dumb
Most of the action movies are sequels or prequels
Most of the horror movies are cheesy or not scary
Fantasy movies are always based on a good book
Some movies are based on plays/musicals
And all the other movies are remakes!

case in point, The Godfather

i haven’t read the book, but…

…come on…

If that’s not a good movie adaptation, then i agree, all book --> film suck.

You miss the point of movie adpatations.

Although some of the more crappier adapataions center around selling more marchandise for the book. Those are bad. (*cough cough Harry Potter cough cough)

However, there are some, such as LotR, that intend to take the book’s mains: plot, theme, atmosphere, etc, and make something similar to the original, because it was so good. The point in creating this movie was to make a fancier even if unaccurate version of the book, and for that reason all of those battles are looking so damn fine.

About you saying that knowing the end makes thee book not worth reading, well, that’s your opinion. I can enjoy a book even when I know half of the plot, just because I don’t know exactly how it will happen, and because you don’t know the little details. (Not to mention that some movies use a different end, for commercial uses [“to be continued”] or the exact opposite)

Also, you didn’t mention movies such as “I am legend”. I read the book and know the mains of the movie, and I must say that they are quite different. Besides the obvious fact that the protagonist is different, the movie is only loosely based on the plot of the book: In fact, they could exist together if they both happen in two different cities of the USA.

Thanks for all the feedback, everyone. This is getting pretty interesting, really.

I think that it’s not that I missed the point of movie adaptations, but it’s that I am more inclined to the original work than another person’s recreation of it via a movie. But when I had second thoughts, I’m starting to see your point of views. I understand that certain movie adaptations can be either equivalent to or better than the book format, and I admit that I was being biased towards movies. Yeah, shame on me. Though I think I have a few good reasons why I don’t like movie adaptations.

For one, there is the lack of originality. While I’m sure that most people would disregard the lack of originality as long as the movie turns out good, I prefer to have my very first experience based on the original work that was solely created by the author. It was only the author who crafted the story from start to finish, while a screenwriter would take an existing work and makes changes here and there to make it more suitable as a movie. Obviously, the screenwriter did not write a story, but instead wrote an alternate version of one that already exists. Yes, I know that movies aren’t suppose to be novels, but that’s the point. The story is no longer a novel. The idea is that there is some sort of a feature from novels that are absent in movies, and I believe that feature is the use of one’s imagination.

You see all of these recent movies hiring actors and actresses, as well as incorporating stunning special effects when all of those can be substituted with the imagination. I’m sure most of us would perceive a particular description differently, but since we are imagining the detail as how we imagine it in our own minds, we are actually taking an active role in story. From what I understand, a book allows us to perceive it based on our own imaginations and thus making it a personal experience, whereas a movie shows us the details visually and auditorially, so apparently no imagination takes place and therefore it wouldn’t be so personal. All of this might be obvious to all of you, but then I want to ask you this question: Are you willing to change a personal experience into a mutual experience? There’s a difference between the two, though I believe that personal experiences can be more powerful.

Well, maybe most people prefer to be shown the details as how the movie portrays them, but I’m the kind of person who doesn’t want be told that there was “only one right answer.”

That’s perfectly fine.

About lacking originality - many authors today are not original, even when it seems they do. And you can only say the plot of the movie is unoriginal, not the entire movies. You see, just like two writers could use nearly the same plots and write two different books, that way a director and a writer could create fully different creations. A story has its writing style (which includes grammar, vocabulary and other words I dont know the name of in english) while a movie has angles, lightning, costumes…

A movie and a book are not judged solely by their plot.

I agree with your second point, though. But I can hardly imagine. That is, sometimes when I read books I get flashes of pictures from what I read (Which had lead me to finding old books I had not remembered anything but those flashes), but mostly I remain blind to the book, and see it only as words on papers, rather than images shaped like words.

But I also pretty much hate long descriptions, which you probably like very much, so that point can be said to be truly personal.

I don’t think that even if I tried I could have imagined the battle for minas tirith, and I usually can imagine things when I try hard enough.

I like video game adaptations…



I have to say, I love movie adaptations! Its a very nice surprise when they turn out well (like the five people you meet in heaven). And then there are some that are just okay (harry potter comes to mind)… And then, there are the laughably bad ones (Charlie, based off of flowers for algernon…-_-) its all quite entertaining to me.

I talked with a teacher who also liked movie adaptations, and she mentions that movies aren’t the only form of media that is destroying our interest in reading books. I agreed with her since I’ve been spending most of my time playing video games and not reading, so I’m looking forward to spending most of my time reading instead. :content:

you gotta mix it up!

See, reading, watching movies, and playing video games are equally good at procrastination or entertainment. I perfect balance of the three is required.


I’d say this depends on a case by case basis. If a book makes a movie just to sell out, i.e harry potter - thats a problem. However, a good book will make a good film, if thought is put into it, and money isnt put into thought. Currency = trash: Vote RON PAUL (that was sarcasm. However, i will undoubtedly be quoted below.)

KT4all, the games come out b4 the movie to generate revenue and hype. duh.